LB 

/63/ 

N4- 


UC-NRLF 


SB    3D1    2bD 


I 


OvJ 


I  J    ^ 


W4- 


The   New    Ekgi^ajvl;  ,   .    o I  ,;   ;  >,.  ,  ■,  ,> 

Association   oir   Teachkr9   ov  EhsrotiSH 

i 

ORGANIZE!*    FBBRUAET    28,     lOOl 
WILLIAM    ALLAN    NBILBON,     PKES1UKNI.  V.    W.   O.   HBE9EY,   SRC'T    AND    IDEAS. 

CHARLES    SWAIN    THOMAS,     EDITOR 


{Editorial  correspondence  should  be  sent  to  the  Editor  at  Newtonville, 
[Mass.;  business  correspondence  should  be  sent  to  the  Secretary-Treas- 
\urer  at  17  Lawrence  Hall,  Cambridge,  Mass. 


'LEAFLET  CHARLES    SWAIN    THOMAS  JANUARY 

NO.     10-4  NEWTON    HIGH    SCHOOL  lOlS 


THE  HILLEGAS  SCALE 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Association  on  Saturday,  Decem- 
ber 14th  where  the  general  topic  was  'Tests  of  Efficiency 
and  Standards  of  Measurement  in  the  Teaching  of  Eng- 
lish Composition,"  the  center  of  interest  and  attack  was  the 
Hillegas  Scale. 

As  the  essential  characteristics  of  this  scale  have  already 
been  explained  in  the  November  Leaflet,  I  need  merely 
repeat  here  that  this  device,  worked  out  by  Professor  Milo 
|B.  Hillegas,  of  Teachers  College,  Columbia  University, 
consists  of  ten  selected  themes  varying  in  merit  from  0  to 
a  maximum  of  937.  The  scale  is  designed  to  aid  the  cor- 
rector in  affixing  to  any  given  theme  under  survey  a  value 
which  corresponds  most  nearly  to  the  value  designated  by 
the  rating  affixed  to  one  of  the  ten  Hillegas  norms,  the 
norms  themselves  representing  the  concerted  judgment  of 
many  different  critics.  If  the'them?  under  survey  falls 
somewhere  between  Value  585  and  Value  675,  for  example, 
the  corrector  may,  after  due  judgment,  grade  it  634,  or, 
roughly  speaking,  63^2  % . 

To  test  the  practical  value  of  this  scheme,  Dr.  William 
Setchel  Learned,  Joseph  Lee  Fellow  for  Research  in  Edu- 
cation at  Harvard  University,  recently  undertook  a  series 
of  experiments  in  the  Newton  schools.  A  set  of  fifty  pa- 
pers, written  by  elementary,  grammar,  and  high-school  pu- 
pils, was  graded  subjectively  by  five  elementary-school  teach- 
ers, five  grammar-school  teachers,  and  five  high-school 
teachers.  The  markers  were  simply  asked  to  rate  the  re- 
lative value  of  each  paper  as  a  bit  of  prose  composition, 
and  to  designate  this  subjective  rating  by  a  percentage  mark 
ranging  according  to  judgment,  anywhere  from  0  to  100%. 

Three  weeks  later  these  same  fifteen  judges,  with  the 
Hillegas  Scale  before  them,  took  these  same  fifty  papers, 
and  graded  them  in  relation  to  the  values  affixed  to  the 


305480 


2  *-:  •.  T  h  e\  '  Eyn  tytis  h    Leaflet 

•*.  " :  y. ••.  .•. •••. 

compo^ftfcSisJ^'tJ^e'J^afeV/^i/other  words,  they  attempt- 
ed to  discard  their  subjective  estimate,  and  to  adjust  a 
given  theme,  as  nearly  as  possible,  to  one  of  the  ten  Hil- 
legas  norms.  They  indicated  the  measure  of  the  variation 
from  this  norm  by  the  proper  percentage  figures.  For  ex- 
ample, if  the  theme  seemed  to  be  nearest  in  merit  to  No. 
7  of  the  Scale  with  its  affixed  value  of  675,  but  inferior 
to  No.  7,  it  was  graded  61%,  let  us  say;  if  superior,  per- 
haps 73%. 

The  interesting  facts  revealed  by  this  experiment  are 
briefly  summerizeel  by  Dr.  Learned : 

"Marking  without  the  scale,  the  judges  assigned  to  the 
papers  values  which  varied  among  themselves  from  30% 
in  one  case  to  85%  in  another.  The  average  extreme 
variation  of  all  fifty  papers  was  58%.  When  assigned  with 
the  scale,  the  ratings  varied  from  18%  in  one  case  to  73% 
in  'another.  The  average  extreme  variation  was  4.4%, 
showing  a  gain  in  uniformity  of  14%,  presumably  due  to 
the  scale. 

The  variation  of  the  nine  best  judgments  out  of  the 
fifteen,  (i.  e.  the  nine  ratings  grouped  about  the  median 
value  assigned  to  each  paper.)  was  from  10%  to  43^  ; 
their  average  extreme  variation  was  30%.  Using  the  scale, 
this  variation  was  reduced  to  from  7%  to  32%,  and  the 
average  extreme  variation  to  17%,  showing  a  gain  for  the 
scale  of  13%. 

An  analysis  of  the  effects  of  the  scale  on  the  average 
ratings  of  the  teachers  discloses  the  following:  Without 
the  scale,  the  average  ratings  of  the  teachers  for  the  en- 
tire fifty  themes  vary  among  themselves  from  23%  to  74%, 
or  51%;  with  the  scale  they  vary  from  38%  to  61%  or 
23%,  showing  thus  a  gain,  apparently  due  to  the  scale,  of 
28%.  With  the  primary  group,  the  reduction  of  varia- 
tion in  average  ratings  is  slight — 24%  to  23%  ;  with  the 
grammar  group  it  is  greater,  39%  to  23%  ;  and  with  the 
high  school  group  it  is  very  marked — 51^  to  13%.  At  the 
same  time  the  average  extreme  variation  in  the  ratings  of 
the  individual  papers  by  the  high  school  group  dropped  from 
49%  to  27%.  The  two  closest  markers  of  the  high  school 
group  rated  the  papers  without  the  scale  with  a  difTerence 
of  9%  between  their  average  ratings.  The  use  of  the  scale 
reduced  this  to  'I'  <  ." 

In  my  own  opinion  the  scale  is  of  little  practical  value, 
notwithstanding  its  revealed  power  to  secure  a  nearer  ap- 
proach  to  uniformity.     Even   this   power   is  less   than   the 


T  he    Hill e gas    Scale  3 

deductions  would  at  first  glance  indicate.  These  papers 
were  marked  by  teachers  who  had  met  in  conference  and 
had  besides  freely  discussed  the  scheme  outside  the  formal 
conference.  All  this  discussion,  especially  the  emphasis 
laid  upon  the  wide  variation  in  judgments,  had  tended 
to  place  each  one  on  his  guard  against  minimum  and  maxi- 
mum extremes.  It  is  fair  to  assume  that  in  the  second  rat- 
ing a  large  number  of  both  the  high  and  the  low  marks 
would  naturally  have  disappeared,  and  the  wide  disparity 
would  have  been  eliminated  without  the  Scale. 

Nor  indeed  am  I  convinced  that  uniformity  in  judgment 
is  always  desirable.  To  critics  in  the  Augustan  Age  most  of 
the  poetry  of  Browning  would  have  been  anathema.  It 
is  easily  conceivable  that  qualities  of  style  which  one 
teacher  would  encourage  another  teacher  would  discourage, 
and  yet  this  diametric  view  might  be  generally  helpful 
to  a  student  receiving  in  sequence  instruction  from  each 
teacher.  Certainly  no  faultless  criterion  of  spiritual  es- 
sence is  securable  by  a  system  of  averages  taken  at  any 
single  moment.  Moreover,  the  Scale  as  it  now  exists,  is 
fundamentally  inadequate.  Of  the  non-artificial  samples 
(4  to  10)  all  but  one — possibly  two — are  on  subjects  drawn 
from  books,  whereas  the  majority  of  our  school  themes  are, 
or  ought  to  be,  on  subjects  drawn  from  life.  In  none  of 
the  selected  types  is  there  any  reported  conversation,  and 
to  adjust  a  composition  with  much  conversation  to  any  one 
norm  in  the  Scale  is  a  sheer  mechanical  placement  rather 
than  a  satisfactory  judgment. 

For  the  same  reason,  it  is  inadequate  because  it  attempts 
to  measure  one  quality  by  an  •  entirely  different  quality. 
An  imaginative  theme  on  Musings  on  the  Lonely  Isle  of 
Nowhere  can  scarcely  be  satisfactorily  compared  to  one 
which  bears  such  a  title  as  The  Latest  Marconni  Device, 
whereas  the  two  themes  may  very  easily  be  referred  to  a 
subjective  A  standard.  As  Professor  Holmes  pointed  out 
at  the  meeting,  you  cannot  measure  light,  and  warmth,  and 
redness  on  the  same  rod.  To  adjust  imagination,  individ- 
uality, original  phrasing,  and  subtle  thought  to  a  tangible 
objective  norm  is  fundamentally  impossible. 

My  personal  attempt  to  use  the  Scale  through  a  set  of 
fifty  papers  was  most  disheartening.  The  set  contained 
compositions  ranging  from  the  fourth  grade  to  the  last 
year  of  the  high  school.  To  adjust  mere  immaturity  of 
thought  to  one  of  the  illiterate  norms  was  to  err  on  the  side 
of  strictness;  to  adjust  it  to  the  high  norms  was  to  err  on 


J 


4  The     English    Leaflet 

the  side  of  leniency.  In  a  sort  of  fateful  necessity  and 
futile  desperation  I  flung  it  somewhere  toward  the  middle. 
Then,  too,  I  felt  myself  being  constantly  harassed  by  two 
contending  judgments — one  urged  the  mark  which  long 
years  of  theme  correcting  had  definitely  established;  the 
other  urged  a  search  for  the  Hillegas  norm  with  its  pre- 
digested  value.  Fifty  times,  therefore,  I  felt  myself 
caught  in  suspended  torture  between  the  two  poles  of  the 
magnet.  Release  was  as  easily  effected  through  errancy 
as  through  inerrancy,  and  I  grew  careless  as  to  the  means. 
Woefully  unscientific,  I  admit. 

Notwithstanding  all  this  adverse  comment  I  nevertheless 
think  that  the  work  of  Dr.  Hillegas  deserves  high  credit. 
He  has  emphasized  the  variability  of  existing  subjective 
judgments,  he  has  directed  self-criticism  toward  our  own 
ill-defined  norms ;  perhaps  he  has  even  pointed  out  the  way 
to  something  that  may  be  sparingly  applied  in  future  prac- 
tice. And  for  these  gratuities  heaped  up  to  us,  we  rest  his 
hermits. 

At  the  editor's  request,  Professor  Holmes,  Professor 
Neilson,  Mr.  Thurber,  and  Dr.  Learned  have  each  written 
out  in  condensed  form  their  opinion  of  the  Hillegas  Scale. 

FROM  PROFESSOR  HOLMES 

The  need  of  objective  standards  to  help  us  in  marking 
compositions  rests  on  the  fact  that  our  own  subjective 
standards  vary.  When  we  have  to  do  justice  as  strictly  as 
may  be  to  the  pupils  whose  work  we  are  rating;  when  we 
seek  a  sure  basis  for  comparison  of  results  in  different 
schools,  from  different  teachers,  by  different  methods ;  when 
we  wish  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  effectiveness  of  our 
own  teaching,  subjective  standards  fail  us.  We  often  mark 
for  other  purposes  than  these,  and  we  often  need  nothing 
to  supplement  our  own  reaction;  but  there  is  plenty  of  use 
for  an  objective  standard  if  we  can  get  one. 

A  scale  to  measure  "merit,"  undifferentiated,  is  of  little 
practical  value,  but  the  tests  of  the  Hillegas  Scale  in  New- 
ton show  that  even  a  general  scale  will  have  considerable 
effect  in  reducing  subjective  variation.  They  show  this 
clearly,  all  defects  in  the  method  of  the  tests  aside.  We 
need,  however,  scales  intrinsically  better  than  the  Hillegas 
Scale, — scales  for  special  kinds  of  writing,  scales  for  spec- 
ial qualities  of  style,  and  scales  for  the  various  school 
grades.  Such  scales  will  be  difficult  to  make  and  rather 
hard  to  use,  at  least  in  the  beginning.     When  to  turn  to  a 


The    H  ill  e  g  a  s    Scale  5 

scale  and  how  completely  to  submit  to  it,  are  questions 
which  will  best  be  answered  by  teachers  who  know  just  how 
a  scale  is  made,  what  it  can  do,  and  what  they  themselves 
are  about. 

It  must  be  remembered,  meanwhile,  that  scales  are  es- 
sential to  the  study  of  many  educational  problems,  even  if 
they  prove  inapplicable  in  the  immediate  work  of  the  class- 
room. 


FROM   PROFESSOR   NEILSON 

A  fatal  defect  in  the  Newton  experiments  with  the  Hil- 
legas  scale  has  been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Thurber.  In  the 
absence  of  specific  instructions  some  teachers,  on  the  first 
reading,  applied  standards  of  the  best  literature,  others  took 
the  best  High  School  work  as  the  maximum.  Such  differ- 
ences were  bound  to  result  in  variations  in  rating  which 
the  application  of  any  one  scale  would  necessarily  reduce 
That  the  Hillegas  Scale  reduced  them  does  not  prove  it 
good  or  bad. 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  proper  field  for  the 
application  of  such  a  scale,  even  when  perfected,  is  in  judg- 
ing the  proficiency  of  pupils  with  a  view  to  promotion  or 
transference  from  one  institution  to  another.  There  are  oth- 
er and  far  better  tests  possible  for  purely  teaching  purposes ; 
and  it  would  be  unfortunate  if  so  external  a  method  of 
judging  results  were  used  in  class-room  work,  in  which  the 
teacher  needs  to  judge  his  pupil's  attainment  with  reference 
to  more  specific  defects  than  can  be  revealed  by  any  such 
scale.  For  the  judgments  involved  in  framing  the  Hille- 
gas Scale  were  the  result  of  a  rough  summation  of  data  de- 
rived from  spelling,  punctuation,  grammar,  sentence  and 
paragraph  structure,  and  evidences  of  power  of  thought 
and  imagination ;  that  summation  being  made  without  prev- 
ious agreement  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  these  var- 
ious classes  of  data.  Rough  totals  of  this  kind  are  value- 
less as  a  guide  in  teaching,  though  for  purposes  of  mere 
classification  they  may  help  to  eliminate  the  more  eccentric 
ratings. 


FROM  MR.  THURBER 

Five  high-school  teachers  in  Newton,  all  of  them  expe- 
rienced English  teachers,  corrected  fifty  compositions  in  the 
experiment   recently  conducted  by   Dr.   Learned.     Among 


6  The     English    Leaflet 

these  teachers  there  is  a  very  desided  feeling  that  the  va- 
riations in  ratings  assigned  by  them  to  the  same  papers  can 
be  accounted  for  by  certain  facts  which  do  not  appear  in 
the  statistical  results.  These  facts  ought  to  be  clearly  un- 
derstood, for  they  strike  at  the  heart  of  the  whole  experi- 
ment as  an  accurate  and  scientific  piece  of  work. 

In  the  first  place,  insufficient  directions  were  given  for 
correcting  and  rating  the  papers.  Conferences  to  inter- 
pret just  what  the  directions  meant  were  prohibited.  With- 
out time  or  opportunity  to  compare  notes,  exchange  im- 
pressions, or  ask  questions,  these  teachers  were  requested 
to  mark  fifty  compositions  according  to  a  standard  that 
was  vague,  artificial,  and  new.  The  extreme  misinterpre- 
tations of  this  standard  can  well  be  illustrated  by  the  fact 
that  one  teacher  rated  the  papers  according  to  a  standard 
of  almost  literary  excellence,  another  according  to  what 
she  might  fairly  expect  from  pupils  of  the  age  and  training 
revealed  in  the  different  compositions.  In  other  words,  one 
marked  almost  entirely  objectively;  the  other  followed  her 
usual  practice  of  marking  subjectively.  That  such  an  ex- 
treme variation  in  interpreting  the  printed  instructions  was 
inexcusable  is  not  now  the  question.  As  a  fact,  however, 
it  largely  destroys  the  scientific  value  of  statistics  compiled 
from  such  ratings. 

In  the  second  place,  the  papers  themselves,  ranging  from 
the  fourth  grade  to  the  senior  year  of  the  high  school,  ad- 
mitted of  the  largest  possible  variations.  Indeed,  it  would 
have  been  hard  to  collect  material  with  more  possibilities 
for  differing  estimates  among  teachers  who  for  many  years 
had  corrected  compositions  from  a  much  narrower  field  and 
therefore  of  much  greater  informity  both  in  technical 
accuracy  and  in  general  character. 

Then  again,  so  little  did  the  correctors  understand  the 
importance  of  the  task  assigned  them  that  quite  naturally 
they  varied  to  a  considerable  degree  in  the  care  and  time 
which  they  gave  to  their  correcting  and  rating. 

The  second  reading  of  the  fifty  compositions,  now  with 
the  Hillegas  Scale  as  a  measuring  standard,  reduced  some- 
what the  widely  varying  marks  of  the  judges.  But  was  it 
the  use  of  the  scale  that  produced  this  greater  informity, 
or  simply  a  little  more  knowledge  of  what  was  meant  by 
the  original  directions?  Several  weeks  elapsed  between  the 
two  readings.  During  this  time  informal  conferences  were 
held  by  the  teachers  among  themselves,  in  which  the  whole 
matter  was  threshed  out.     It  is  therefore  entirely  probable 


The    Hillegas    Scale  7 

that  a  similar  approach  toward  uniformity  would  have  come 
from  a  second  rating  without  the  use  of  the  scale  at  all. 
The  high-school  teachers  in  Newton  who  have  experi- 
mented with  the  Hillegas  Scale  are  unanimous  in  the  opin- 
ion that  it  is  a  poor  scale, — badly  constructed,  inadequate 
in  scope  and  variety  of  material,  unsuited  to  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  designed.  They  also  seem  to  agree  pretty 
unanimously  that  the  scale  idea  as  applied  to  the  correct- 
ing of  English  compositions,  if  not  actually  pernicious,  is  im- 
practicable. No  one  scale, — no  twenty  scales — ,  would  be 
sufficient  to  measure  even  the  technical  form, — to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  content,  the  originality,  the  imagination,  the  li- 
terary charm  of  the  infinite  varieties  of  written  work  which 
come  to  every  high-school  teacher  of  English  in  a  single 
month!  The  most  baneful  effect  of  the  use  of  scales  is 
that  they  inevitably  make  theme  correcting  more  objective, 
and  less  subjective;  the  teacher's  attention  is  at  once  fo- 
cussed  upon  the  paper  and  not  upon  the  boy  who  wrote  it, — 
upon  abstract  qualities  of  writing,  not  upon  personal  qual- 
ities of  the  writer.  The  Hillegas  Scale,  as  any  number  of 
better  scales,  used  ideally,  would  make  it  possible  for  any 
English  teacher  in  the  country  to  correct  and  mark  papers 
exactly  as  well  as  the  teacher  for  whom  those  papers  were 
written.     Such  a  thing,  on  the  face  of  it,  is  absurd. 


FROM  DR.  LEARNED 

The  idea  of  a  graded  scale  of  comparison  to  assist  in  as- 
signing to  English  themes  values  which  shall  be  self-ex- 
planatory and  generally  accepted  is  a  new  and  promising 
suggestion.  The  first  device  for  this  purpose  is  clearly 
preliminary  and  inconclusive.  It  is  a  "blanket"  scale  cov- 
ering everything  that  may  be  included  under  the  term  mer- 
it, and  expressed,  in  its  lower  and  middle  terms  at  least, 
in  samples  which  are  but  slightly  comparable  with  the  us- 
ual school  product.  Its  chief  virtue  is  the  thoroughly  scien- 
tific character  of  its  construction;  its  chief  fault  is  that  un- 
der the  most  favorable  conditions  it  still  admits  a  legitimate 
variation  of  .25% — a  minimum  which  swells  to  50%  in  rat- 
ing specimens  to  which  its  samples  are  unsuited,  or  when 
the  scale  is  hastily  or  carelessly  applied.  That  it  will  con- 
siderably reduce  the  limits  of  variation  which  appear  in  a 
purely  subjective  rating  (i.  e.  the  unmodified  reaction  of 
teachers  to  the  final  question :   'What  is  that  piece  of  writing 


8  The     English    Leaflet 

worth  as  English  prose  composition?)'  has  been  conclusive- 
ly shown  in  the  Newton  tests.  Compared  with  such  ratings, 
its  graduations  offer  a  fairly  definite  estimate. 

But  the  encouraging  feature  of  the  scale  is  that  it  invites 
development  and  improvement.  A  similar  scale,  refined  to 
such  a  point  as  to  preclude  more  than  10%~15%  variation, 
and  with  an  average  effectiveness  under  10%,  would  be  of 
great  value,  and  no  one  can  reasonably  affirm  that  that  is 
impossible.  For  the  purpose  of  record,  of  transfer,  of  ex- 
amination for  admission  or  promotion,  of  recommendation 
to  employers,  of  conferences  with  parents,  and  as  a  stim- 
ulus to  the  pupils  themselves,  such  a  scale  of  quality  would 
at  once  satisfy  a  great  need.  The  work  of  the  investiga- 
tor who  would  compare  school  with  school,  method  with 
method,  is  greatly  handicapped  by  the  lack  of  precisely  this 
thing.  Its  use  in  the  highly  analytical  and  specialized  work 
of  the  class-room  is  problematical,  but  a  scale  would  prob- 
ably make  its  way  even  here  in  proportion  to  its  excel- 
lence ;  at  least  as  a  sort  of  referee,  or  as  a  measure  of  prog- 
ress towards  a  concrete  and  visible  goal. 


EDITORIAL  NOTES 

The  Association  is  indebted  to  the  Massachusetts 
Institute  of  Technology  for  their  courtesy  in  extending  to 
us  the  free  use  of  Huntington  Hall  for  our  December 
meeting. 


Whatever  opinion  we  may  individually  hold  concerning 
the  practical  efficiency  of  the  Hillegas  Scale,  we  must  con- 
cede to  it  the  power  of  stimulating  an  interesting  discus- 
sion— profitable  discussions,  too. 


Dr.  Long's  scheme  of  giving  two  marks  on  a  theme — 
A  for  excellence  in  thought  and  E  for  carelessness  in  mat- 
ters elementary — has  large  possibilities  for  good.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  dread  of  failure,  if  the  E  faults 
persisted,  is  the  agency  that  eliminated  the  careless  habits. 
After  all,  perhaps  we  are  too  lenient  with  misspelling.  The 
delinquency  in  most  cases  is  likely  to  disappear  when  the 
treatment  is  sufficiently  drastic. 


Editorial    Notes  9 

Several  subscriptions  to  the  English  Journal  have  been 
received.  Anyone  who  wishes77?£  Journal  may  send  his 
name  to  the  Editor  of  the  Leaflet.  When  twenty  have 
subscribed,  the  names  will  be  sent  to  the  business  manager, 
Mr.  J.  F.  Hosie,  Teachers  College,  Chicago,  and  he  will 
send  out  the  notices  to  the  individual  subscribers.  The 
price,  under  this  arrangement  is  $1.50.     We  need  ten  more. 


The  Association  is  genuinely  indebted  to  Charles  F. 
Richardson,  Professor  Emeritus  of  Dartmouth  College,  for 
his  address, — Is     English     Untaught     and     Unteachablef 

Those  of  us  who  last  Saturday  surrendered  to  the  charm 
of  Professor  Richardson's  personality;  will  easily  under- 
stand why  all  the  old  Dartmouth  students  insist  that  the 
question  must  be  answered  with  a  strong  negative. 


KIMBALL'S     ENGLISH     GRAMMAR 

By  Lillian  G.  Kimball,  formerly  Head  of  English 
Department,  State  Normal    School,  Oshkosh,  Wis. 

60     CENTS 

A  textbook  in  grammar,  adapted  to  secondary  school 
use,  distinguished  by  its  commonsense,  in  which  the  sub- 
ject is  simplified  and  robbed  of  all  unnecessary  and 
minor  technicalities.  For  this  reason  it  will  make  an 
immediate  and  convincing  appeal  to  the  pupil,  as  well 
as  to  the  teacher.  The  treatment  is  original  and  inter- 
esting, while  the  style  is  simple,  clear,  and  concise. 
Throughout,  the  practical  side  of  the  subject  has 
received  special  attention,  many  exercises  being  given 
in  which  the  substitution  of  correct  forms  for  common 
errors  in  speech  will  be  of  great  benefit  in  improving 
the  pupil's  language  in  both  speaking  and  writing.  Fre- 
quent outlines  and  summaries  are  also  presented.  The 
method  of  instruction  is  positive,  calling  forth  the  con- 
structive attitude  on  the  part  of  the  pupil  in  practical 
exercises  and  making  a  continual  demand  upon  his  own 
initiative.  The  illustrative  sentences  have  been  chosen 
for  their  literary  excellence  as  well  as  for  their  fitness 
for  the  purpose. 

AMERICAN    BOOK   COMPANY 

New  York  Cincinnati  Chicago 


Hitchcock's  Rhetoric  and  the  Study    of   Literature 

By  Alfred  M.  Hitchcock,  Head  of  the  English  Department 
in  the  Hartford  Public  High  School 

A  manual  for  the  last  two  years  of  the  high  school 
course.  Part  I  contains  a  compact  rhetoric  based  upon 
the  terms,  Purity,  Clearness,  Force,  Beauty;  a  vocabu- 
lary of  rhetorical  and  critical  terms  is  a  new  feature 
of  this  section.  A  condensed  manual  of  composition 
follows  with  chapters  on  the  four  forms  of  discourse, 
exposition  and  argument  being  given  the  prominence 
appropriate  for  junior  and  senior  work.  Part  II  takes 
up  the  study  of  masterpieces  and  surveys  the  entire  field 
of  pure  literature  under  the  headings,  Reading,  Litera- 
ture, Poetry  and  Prose,  Varieties  of  Prose,  Varieties  of 
Poetry,  The  Study  of  Prose  Fiction,  The  Study  of  the 
Drama,  The  Study  of  the  Essay,  The  Study  of  Poetry. 
Part  III  gives  a  condensed  summary  by  periods  of  Eng- 
lish literature, — such  a  survey  as  is  called  for  in  the 
new  college  requirements.  The  Appendix  includes  ques- 
tions on  a  number  of  the  more  commonly  studied  master- 
pieces. As  in  the  author's  Practice-Books,  which  this 
manual  is  intended  to  supplement,  the  exercises  form  an 
important  and  attractive  feature. 


New  York 


HENRY  HOLT   AND   COMPANY 

Boston 


Chicago 


The  World's  Great  Classics 

As  Required    for  Reading  in  Group  I   of   the 
College  Entrance  Requirements 

1915-1919 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  NARRATIVE 

With  Introduction  and  Notes  by  Alfred  D.  Sheffield, 
Riverside  Literature  Series,  No.  204.  Cloth  75 
cents,  net.     Postpaid. 

THE  ODYSSEY 

Translated  into  English  Prose  by  Professor  George 
H.  Palmer  of  Harvard  University.  Riverside  Litera- 
ture Series,  No.  J  80.     Cloth  75  cents,  net.     Postpaid. 

THE  ILIAD 

Translated  into  English  Blank  Verse  by  William 
Cullen  Bryant.  Students'  Edition.  $1.00,  net. 
Postpaid. 

THE  AENEID 

Translated  into  English  Blank  Verse  by  Theodore 
C.  Williams,  formerly  Head  Master  of  the  Roxbury 
Latin  School.  Riverside  Literature  Series,  No.  193. 
Cloth   75  cents,  net.  Postpaid. 


HOUGHTON    MIFFLIN    COMPANY,    Boston,    New  York,   Chicago 


.  •     •       • 

•     •         »    »      » 


4k  *J 


The    Standard    hnglish  Classics 

The  Newest  Books  in   This  Series  of  70  Volumes 


Palgrave's  Golden  Treasury  Stevenson's  Treasure  Island 

Old  Testament  Selections  Lincoln,  Selections 

Huxley,  Selections  David  Copperfield 

Stevenson's    Travels    with    a  Donkey  and    An    Inland    Voyage 

The  Standard  English  Classics  represent  a  distinct 
accomplishment  in  the  manufacture  of  good  books  at 
low  prices.  They  are  unique  in  their  appropriateness 
of  editorial  material  and  mechanical  excellence.  Their 
pleasing  appearance  and  convenient  size  commend  them 
at  once  to  teacher  and  student.  The  series  includes  all 
the  volumes  necessary  to  meet  the  College  Entrance 
Requirements  in  English  and  many  other  selections  from 
standard  English  authors.  New  volumes  are  being  added 
constantly. 

Upon  request  the  publishers  will  gladly  send  you  a 
pamphlet  containing  the  College  Entrance  Requirements 
in  English  for  1913-1919,  and  a  complete  list  of  the 
Standard  English  Classics. 


29 


GINN  and  COMPANY 

BEACON    STREET,        -         -        BOSTON 


New  York 


Chicago 


London 


High  School  Exercises  in  Grammar 

By  Maude  M.  Frank,  A.  M.,  De  Witt  Clinton  High  School, 

New  York  City.     206  pp.     75  cents. 

As  a  manual  of  English  grammar,  designed  particu- 
larly for  high  schools,  this  text  is  intended  to  serve  a 
special  purpose.  Its  aim  is  to  provide  the  material 
needed  for  the  rapid,  intensive  work  which  is  most  prac- 
tical and  most  profitable. 

Primarily,  the  book  is  intended  to  be  used  in  connec- 
tion with  the  first  or  second  year  work  in  English  in 
high  schools.  However,  by  the  method  of  cross-referen- 
ces employed,  the  various  divisions  may  easily  be  used 
independently  in  a  quick,  intensive  review  of  grammar 
during  the  fourth  year. 

Constructive  Exercises  in  English 

By  Maude  M.  Frank,  A.  M.     164  pp.     50  cents. 

These  exercises  offer  in  convenient  and  practical  form 
an  abundance  of  illustrative  and  practice  material  in 
oral  and  written  work  that  many  teachers  desire.  Special 
attention  is  given  to  the  development  of  the  student's 
vocabulary. 

Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.    Publishers 


Fourth   Avenue  and   30th  Street, 


New    Vork   City 


UNIVERSITY  OP  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


str  7  1915 
JBL  g  ,918 

MAY  19  fdtd 
OCT  181920 


MAR  4  1S22 


JWL  20  i922 


NOV  J?   i^^ 
OCT 


30m-l,'15 


305480 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


